Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Code of conduct

Thanks for the response Mike, and the pointers.  I'd like to clarify
that I'm not proposing changing the code of conduct that applies to
Eclipse as a whole.  What I am proposing is twofold: additional rules
of conduct and remedial tools specific to Jakarta along the lines of
what I've outlined above for the reasons I've already given, and also
an explicit endorsement and affirmation from those within the relevant
Jakarta group(s) expressing that the code of conduct and the
consequent ethical implications are in fact something that is core to
the Jakarta community and will be actively applied on a day to day
basis.  I believe that neither of these things requires any
intervention by the Board, but if I'm incorrect about that, please let
me know.

I generally won't plea for a more professional tone.  In my view,
professionalism and seriousness are mutually necessary, and Jakarta
will be ultimately dysfunctional if either are lacking.  As I am not
required by my employer to contribute to Jakarta EE, I (and, I
presume, other would-be contributors) have the luxury of simply
disinvolving myself if I feel that the quality of governance does not
meet (or attempt to meet) my own personal professional and/or ethical
standards.  But, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't at least make
some gesture in that direction as opposed to simply walking away, thus
my note.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:26 PM Mike Milinkovich
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David,
> Thanks for this note, as it raises some important topics.
> The Eclipse Foundation Code of Conduct applies to all activities held under the auspices of this organization. This clearly includes Jakarta EE. This document has been reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors, and adopting an alternative would require the same level of review and approval. If you have specific revisions to propose, you should discuss them with Red Hat's director and have her bring them forward to our Board. (I am happy to provide an introduction if necessary.)
> If you have a specific concern that needs to be raised, I would encourage you to use the enforcement mechanisms described in the existing policy.
> If this is intended to be a general plea for a more gentle and professional tone in discussions, that is always welcome.
> On 2020-04-13 11:22 a.m., David Lloyd wrote:
> The Eclipse Foundation has a Community Code of Conduct [1] that one
> would assum also covers Jakarta.  But given recent discussions, I
> (speaking just as a community member) would propose that it would be
> greatly beneficial to the Jakarta community and brand if Jakarta
> itself were to specifically adopt an official code of conduct (the
> Eclipse one or a more specific one) which governs the experts as well
> as the community.
> I would suggest that the following areas be covered by such a code:
> * Behavior (being respectful, accepting responsibility, honesty,
> empathy, safety)
> * Content (clarifying objective vs subjective language, being concise
> and rigorous, avoiding hyperbole and "argument strategies")
> * Remedy (what to do in case of violations, how to correct problems,
> how to deal with mistakes)
> The behavior area I consider to be what a traditional "project" code
> of conduct (such as Contributor Covenant, the existing Eclipse Code of
> Conduct or similar) would normally cover.  This would cover
> unacceptable behavior such as abuse, harassment, trolling, personal
> attacks, etc.
> Jakarta strives to generate specifications.  This is more involved,
> difficult, and complex than many "normal" open source projects that
> one might find on Eclipse or elsewhere.  Because of the special needs
> of specifications - particularly, the role of clear, concise, and
> rigorously correct language in a coherent specification - I would
> propose that clear content and communication is also an area of
> conduct that should be covered.  Just as we must all work a bit harder
> to respect one another, we must also work a bit harder to be precise
> in our language, in order to provide the best specifications possible.
> Imprecise language goes over the line into misconduct when opinions
> are asserted as though they were facts, hyperbolic or bombastic
> statements are made to maximize emotional impact, or broad
> generalizations or other logically fallacious statements are used
> deliberately to derail constructive discussion.  When developing a
> specification - which is by nature required to be as objective as
> possible - these kinds of machinations can disrupt or undermine what
> may already be a very difficult endeavor.
> Finally, a remedial path is necessary because, as humans, all of us
> have (and will) make mistakes.  The code should outline a path not
> only for the spec committee and other official structures to cope with
> problems, but also for those community members who have in fact found
> themselves in violation of the code, so that they understand how to
> make amends and avoid lingering resentment, which can have a
> detrimental long term effect on the community.  Many such strategies
> can be found in typical autism behavior programs, but are (in my
> opinion) actually quite useful for any person who finds themselves on
> the wrong side of a behavioral problem and are unsure what to do.  In
> particular, there seems to be credible evidence that "zero tolerance"
> policies neither deter nor repair undesirable behavior.
> Having a comprehensive code of conduct which is consistently applied
> is, in my opinion, a necessary feature of a serious specification body
> in this decade.  I believe that the lack of a CoC covering these areas
> is a deterrent to participation.  I know that it is a deterrent to me,
> at any rate.
> [1]
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> @mmilinkov
> +1.613.220.3223 (m)
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit


Back to the top